Hitmonchan107
Member
That makes me nervous.ManBearPanda said:
That was the rationale used for "Halo 3."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo: Reach |OT4| This Thread is Not Your Grave, But You Are Welcome In It
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
That was the rationale used for "Halo 3."
A27_StarWolf
Banned
PsychoRaven said:
WOAH. I just figured out how to make firefight more interesting. Make a firefight map with interactivity. Imagine this, a map like the police headquarters map from ODST, but split by a bridge that extends, sometimes you might need to get to the other side because you are getting overrun, so you extend the bridge, but you have to get across quick... just a thought.
I also just realized we wont have any grunts
ManBearPanda
Neo Member
Hitmonchan107 said:
I would've been right there with you had this been back during the lead up to Halo 3, but after Halo 3, I was completely turned off by the fiction. As long as the mechanics are sound, MC and Cortana could be time-travelling space cops for all I care, heh
The Real Napsta
Member
I know I'm late to the party but:
On LAN
Halo CE > 2 > 3 > Reach
Halo 3 just has bad netcode and equipment was terrible (not as bad as armor lock though)
Halo 3 had plenty of good maps:
Construct
The Pit
Narrows
Guardian
Heretic
Citadel
Longshore
Blackout (bad lockout, good map)
Cold Storage
Foundry (Ons and Amp)
plus some decent ones like Avalanche and Ghost Town.
PS yes i know host advantage on LAN is still awful on Halo CE and Halo 2
On LAN
Halo CE > 2 > 3 > Reach
Halo 3 just has bad netcode and equipment was terrible (not as bad as armor lock though)
Halo 3 had plenty of good maps:
Construct
The Pit
Narrows
Guardian
Heretic
Citadel
Longshore
Blackout (bad lockout, good map)
Cold Storage
Foundry (Ons and Amp)
plus some decent ones like Avalanche and Ghost Town.
PS yes i know host advantage on LAN is still awful on Halo CE and Halo 2
I totally don't want the BR back. If this happens I will be sad. I do not want a burst fire weapon, it was not fun to me. I'm sure I'll like/accept whatever they come up with but god, please god make it hitscan.
I also do not want ranks back. I would like tighter trueskill and maybe background ranks, but I don't want them shown. Boosting aside, the belittling and general assholery of higher ranks to lower is not acceptable to me. Halo/Xbox has enough hate and I think ranks leads to more.
I actually would like bloom to stay, just tweaked to be more consistent and further reward those who use it well and punish those who don't. Then, keep the DMR or have a similar primary rifle.
I also do not want ranks back. I would like tighter trueskill and maybe background ranks, but I don't want them shown. Boosting aside, the belittling and general assholery of higher ranks to lower is not acceptable to me. Halo/Xbox has enough hate and I think ranks leads to more.
Devin Olsen
Member
I'm not a big firefight fan. But i loved firefight in ODST. In reach Though it's boring, why did they move away from a good forumula?
ElRenoRaven
Member
wwm0nkey said:
Yea cause Bungie was too damn stubborn to give the fans what we wanted in regards to this. It's by far the one huge complaint I've had with all the Halo games online wise.
The Real Napsta
Member
Devin Olsen said:
They spent more time making firefight options that no one uses instead.
Devin Olsen
Member
A split player base does not bode well for MM. thus customs games browsers do not exist.PsychoRaven said:
LOL, Watching the Instinct stream and Pistola just said one of the funniest things I have ever heard about Forge maps. They are playing the new maps that MLG decided were better than Warlock and Bomb gametypes and he goes on to say, "These maps were made by babies, like they just put building blocks in their mouths and then spit them out, and this is what we get to play on."
Devin Olsen said:
Plus custom games with randoms sounds like a not great idea. I can only imagine all the trolling that could be done.
I haven't played GAF customs, but aside from playing with friends or internet friends, I don't see the appeal of customs. I honestly think a custom games browser would not work well and most would not use it.
ncsuDuncan
Member
I also fixed a few grammar errors and added a paragraph regarding the "massively awesome multiplayer game" fiasco after David Aldridge's joke at GDC.
Like I said, no huge revelations but at least we now know what FWC stands for (I think).
PsychoRaven said:
Stubborn? From what I remember hearing, they busted their butts trying to get it to work in both 2 and 3, and it didn't work out.
I don't even know how you'd get that crap to work in Reach though. The engine doesn't even know what the current gametype is anymore, it can only communicate the name string and the time remaining and highest score when you look at player details.
Do you search by Gametype Objects? You can't search for CTF, because "CTF" is no longer a concept the engine has. You could search for "Flags", but then you'd also get Speedpile, Territories, Speedflag, Stockpile, 3 Flag and Chess. Do you search for "Bombs" ? Now you're going to get both Assault and Hot Potato games.
Hitmonchan107
Member
ncsuDuncan said:
The Real Napsta
Member
FyreWulff said:
How hard is it to make a damn server list?
I'm not actually saying I want a custom game browser though, I like MM.
A few thoughts on making Firefight better.A27_StarWolf said:WOAH. I just figured out how to make firefight more interesting. Make a firefight map with interactivity. Imagine this, a map like the police headquarters map from ODST, but split by a bridge that extends, sometimes you might need to get to the other side because you are getting overrun, so you extend the bridge, but you have to get across quick... just a thought.
I also just realized we wont have any grunts
In Reach, only one squad out of six each wave attacks at a time. Instead of one squad attacking at a time, scale the number attacking to the number of players. One for a lone player, two for two players, three for three, four for four. Reach is a shooting gallery because the enemy is passive; ODST was a survival mode because they swarmed toward the players.
Return to limited ammo racks. This is made harder by the use of load outs, since so many weapons can be in play. I would set the ammo rack so that it had finite resources each round, like lives, either shared or pooled (a custom option that could be adjusted). So the rack could be used say, 10 times per round, or set it so everone gets three uses per round. Better yet, just do away with ammor racks entirely, and scatter spare weapons and ammo around the maps, as with a Multiplayer map. That would spread the maps out a bit more.
I like the sleeping Grunts at the start of Corvette, and and made me wish the maps started out differently. Instead of starting empty, they start heavily populated and reinforced, and we had to take that territory over. Imagine if Unearthed started with the entire facility crawling with Covenant, and we started out on the far side with in the little hut in the corner, and had to slowly take it over. And then, defend it from new waves. You could build out unique scenarios for each map.
Moar vehicles, with the options to configure the number and which ones appear. On or off, and luck determining the number, is far too limiting.
Include elments like turrets and Banshees. If Glacier had been set up the same way as it was in campaign, where we could use the stationary guns and hijack Banshees, it would be awesome.
The Real Napsta said:
It's easy to make a server list, it's a lot of work to make an useful lobby list.
Like I said, the best opportunity for list browsing would have been Halo 2. It had the least amount of variables that could change the game. 3 would have been possible but you could still be in for surprises. Reach is damn near impossible and it'd just turn into Halo 2 Vista:
Where people exploit the listing browser and use it as a fucking spam billboard for their website.
I'd like to see switches in BTB maps. Keep them out of the 4v4 (High Ground), but I think they work well in BTB (Long Shore). Imagine a map with a controllable shield bridge on a BTB map. It could have a minute cool down timer, but it would make for some crazy objective games. Imagine taking a Warthog with the Flag carrier across the shield bridge, and then deactivating it to stop any pursuers.Stripper13 said:
What if there were 3 levels of precision weapons: Magnum/ BR/ DMR. The Magnum is essentially the same as it is now, the BR is similar to H2 and H3, but with slightly reduced range, and the DMR changed to dominate at longer range.
The Assault Rifle/Magnum would be the default secondary weapon in 4v4, with BRs or DMRs on the map; not both (think Spike grenades vs plasma in H3). 4v4 Pro would have BR/AR with DMRs on the map.
In BTB, the starting weapons would be the BR/AR, with DMRs on the map. You wouldn't be able to ping players from across the map like in Hemorrhage with your starting weapon, but you still spawn with a rifle that you can defend yourself with.
I'vehad this crazy idea that's similar to yours. What if every map was a sort of mini Forge World? The first map that comes to mind is Longshore. You have the entire BTB in front of you like normal, but then you can go into forge and inside one of the towers is a remake of Countdown. Not forged, but built in the same playspace. Every map could actually be 2-3 maps in one. If Halo 4 came with just 7 of these multi-playspaces, there would actually be about 17 maps at launch.
Also, why can't Firefight be played on multiplayer maps? it seems kind of silly building maps specifically for one gamemode. There are a few multiplayer maps that would work well for FF, and vice versa.
Booshka said:
Gold is cheaper than the costs that guy is paying to have all those servers hosted. The last hosting provider I looked up when I was going to rent a H2V server was 120$/month. Spamdorks are going to be all over any actually popular Halo release's browser list.
Barrow Roll
Member
Amen. The day button combos come back and become a necessity to be competitively viable, that's the day I stop playing Halo. They take skill and all, but that's not the game I want to play. Keep that fighting game shit out of my Halo, k thnx.Stripper13 said:
The Real Napsta
Member
FyreWulff said:
Problem solved.
Speaking of upgrading FF:
Gears 3 Horde Mode sounds pretty nice... and Im not a big Gears player.
- Buildable defenses/fortification
- In-game cash allows you to purchase upgrades/weapons/ammo/vehicles (silverback)
- Boss battles (with multiple boss types)
- Swappable cash/ammo to other players
- Mini-missions within waves (that affect the game unlike Reach's challenges)
I know you guys have seen this video before.. just figured it was relevant to the discussion.
I can't imagine what Forge could do with this type of customization in a Halo game.
One day...
Gears 3 Horde Mode sounds pretty nice... and Im not a big Gears player.
- Buildable defenses/fortification
- In-game cash allows you to purchase upgrades/weapons/ammo/vehicles (silverback)
- Boss battles (with multiple boss types)
- Swappable cash/ammo to other players
- Mini-missions within waves (that affect the game unlike Reach's challenges)
I know you guys have seen this video before.. just figured it was relevant to the discussion.
I can't imagine what Forge could do with this type of customization in a Halo game.
One day...
NullPointer
Member
Yep. I'd even rather that standard weapons were dropped from Pelicans rather than having boxes at fixed locations. Wherever the ammo is defines a radius that you don't want to wander too far beyond. Mix up where the equipment is and you'll have more movement throughout the map.Ken said:
This is another good one. Hunters and Zealots usually pull this duty, but come we never got to see and more of those huge beasts (Guta?). An assault with multiple vehicles would also work.Homeboyd said:
Hitmonchan107
Member
I completely forgot about Horde mode. Holy shit.Homeboyd said:
I just mentally pre-ordered "Gears 3." Is this real life?
Hitmonchan107 said:
Nah, Horde and Campaign are basically the only two playable modes in Gears. The multiplayer has always been a trainwreck since 1 which from my playing of the beta, doesn't seem to have changed much.
I pretty much exclusively play Horde in 2, and I'm actually planning on never even touching multiplayer in 3. Horde and Beast all day errday
NullPointer
Member
Oh yeah. And its completely insane.Hitmonchan107 said:
And here's one for my personal wishlist for Halo 4. Don't focus all of the post-release support purely on multiplayer. Reach, ODST and whatever games are to come could use new campaign missions, solo and co-op challenges, and wholly new firefight modes. Give us background story episodes for some of the characters or backstory behind some of the missions.
This whole map pack 1,2,3 thing is just a worn model already and its only led to fewer good maps at release.
It's because the pixels are bigger. That kind of lag is called raster-jumbonium. The game has to draw much larger squares, or 'pixels' the larger the TV is. Think of it like an etchasketch - the video game computer chip can draw a small etchasketch picture easily, or a magna doodle (sprite) game trivially. However, the massive square 'pixels' on your vizio require extra horsepower, or 'CPUs' to be rendered, which is a scientific term for drawing.Ramirez said:
The Real Napsta
Member
Striker said:
It still counts.
Seriously, if people want something, why do you insist that "splitting the population" is horrible for the community? People play certain things because they like certain things and dislike others.
For instance, I hate SWAT, Snipers, and Grifball. They have their own playlists. Why would I want to be matched up with people looking to play Swat? Oh right, and it actually was like that for the first few months of release (SWAT/Snipers in Team Slayer and it was truly unbearable).
I would mainly play Halo 4 matchmaking. However, if I could hop onto Halo 4, find a crazy custom gametype (where KD/rank/EXP doesn't matter) I would. People who want to for mindless fun will play customs.
Oh and the EXP/leveling up/reward factors will keep matchmaking alive. If you think that people would never play matchmaking again, you're wrong. People play this game for credits/ranking up. I don't know why, but they do. Most people would feel that going into customs would be "worthless" because you wouldn't rank up or be rewarded. That way the people who want to simply have mindless fun will populate the custom server browser
For instance, I hate SWAT, Snipers, and Grifball. They have their own playlists. Why would I want to be matched up with people looking to play Swat? Oh right, and it actually was like that for the first few months of release (SWAT/Snipers in Team Slayer and it was truly unbearable).
I would mainly play Halo 4 matchmaking. However, if I could hop onto Halo 4, find a crazy custom gametype (where KD/rank/EXP doesn't matter) I would. People who want to for mindless fun will play customs.
Oh and the EXP/leveling up/reward factors will keep matchmaking alive. If you think that people would never play matchmaking again, you're wrong. People play this game for credits/ranking up. I don't know why, but they do. Most people would feel that going into customs would be "worthless" because you wouldn't rank up or be rewarded. That way the people who want to simply have mindless fun will populate the custom server browser
The Real Napsta
Member
Striker said:
It added a great map to the game, that's something.